text:
The Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association (WCMA) will award five student scholarships April 17 during the Wisconsin Cheese Industry Conference in La Crosse, WI. Each of these successful candidates earns $2,000 scholarship awards.
WCMA's Mike Dean Scholarship to Hangartner, Lensmire
Each year, two students earn the $2,000 Myron P. "Mike" Dean Cheese Industry Scholarship. The 2013 recipients are:
- Alyssa Hangartner, a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is the daughter of Steve & Judy Hangartner; Steve is an employee of Saputo Cheese USA. Alyssa is pursuing a degree in Microbiology and is interested in a career in food safety testing and research.
- Joshua Lensmire, a student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Joshua is the son of Don & Lynn Lensmire, and his father is employed at BelGioioso Cheese Inc. Joshua has also worked summers at BelGioioso. He is pursuing a degree in Microbiology and hopes to attain a master's degree and continue research involving pathogens in food.
This is the 15h year WCMA has offered scholarships in the name of Myron P. "Mike" Dean. WCMA initiated these scholarships in 1997 and in 1999 named the scholarship in honor of Mike Dean, dairy extension specialist at the University of Wisconsin. Mr. Dean, a WCMA Life Member, trained Wisconsin cheesemakers for over 30 years and led cheese quality efforts at the University of Wisconsin. He passed away March 25, 1999.
"Among this year's applicants were these two excellent students pursuing microbiology and food safety and quality research. These students are a great fit with Mike Dean's work and legacy," said John Umhoefer, executive director of the Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association.
WCMA's Supplier Member Scholarships
Three $2,000 scholarships are awarded to WCMA supplier members and their families each year. The 2013 recipients include:
- Annaliesel Hannes, a student at North Carolina State University where she is pursing degrees in Microbiology and Food Science. Annaliesel's father, Donald, is employed at Loma Systems.
- Mitchell Altmann, a student at University of Wisconsin-Stout seeking a degree in Business. Mitchell's father, Tom Altmann, is VP Operations at Altmann Construction Company in Wisconsin Rapids, where Mitchell has worked during the previous four summers.
- Amanda Skarlupka, who currently attends the University of Wisconsin-Madison where she is pursuing a degree in Microbiology and Botany. Amanda's father, Joe is employed at Zepnick Solutions.
These students are the thirty-third, thirty-fourth and thirty-fifth recipients of the WCMA scholarship for supplier members. "The dairy industry is a partnership between our creative makers and the suppliers that provide innovation and solutions. The WCMA Board of Directors is honored to offer scholarships to these supplier member families and to further the education of these exceptional students," John Umhoefer said.
The WCMA student scholarship program is supported by the Championship Cheese Auction at the Wisconsin Cheese Industry Conference. Each year, the auction of gold medal cheeses from WCMA's Championship Cheese Contests provides income for a permanent, reserved scholarship fund within Wisconsin Cheese Makers Association. The Auction is a highlight of the Chr. Hansen Reception.


text:
Bar Refaeli to Roger Waters -- Take My Pretty Face Out of Your Israel-Hating Concerts
Bar Refaeli to Roger Waters Take My Pretty Face Out of Your Israel-Hating Concerts
Israeli supermodel Bar Refaeli is NOT a fan of Pink Floyd, demanding its lead singer Roger Waters remove her photo from his concerts after he called for a boycott against the Holy Land.
FYI, Waters is a vocal supporter of a campaign called Boycott Divestment and Sanctions against Israel (BDS) and even floats a pig-shaped balloon with the Star of David at his shows.
Ironically, Waters' performances also include background video that uses a glamor shot of Bar Refaeli -- and the Israeli smokeshow doesn't like it one bit.
Bar tweeted Wednesday in Hebrew, "Roger Waters, you should remove my picture from videos at your concerts. If you're going to boycott, then go all the way."
Funny timing, considering Israel and Palestine recently re-engaged in peace talks for the first time in five years.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A sublime cosmic mystery unfolds on a mild summer afternoon in Palo Alto, California, where I've come to talk with the visionary physicist Andrei Linde. The day seems ordinary enough. Cyclists maneuver through traffic, and orange poppies bloom on dry brown hills near Linde's office on the Stanford University campus. But everything here, right down to the photons lighting the scene after an eight-minute jaunt from the sun, bears witness to an extraordinary fact about the universe: Its basic properties are uncannily suited for life. Tweak the laws of physics in just about any way and—in this universe, anyway—life as we know it would not exist.
Consider just two possible changes. Atoms consist of protons, neutrons, and electrons. If those protons were just 0.2 percent more massive than they actually are, they would be unstable and would decay into simpler particles. Atoms wouldn't exist; neither would we. If gravity were slightly more powerful, the consequences would be nearly as grave. A beefed-up gravitational force would compress stars more tightly, making them smaller, hotter, and denser. Rather than surviving for billions of years, stars would burn through their fuel in a few million years, sputtering out long before life had a chance to evolve. There are many such examples of the universe's life-friendly properties—so many, in fact, that physicists can't dismiss them all as mere accidents.
"We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible," Linde says.
Physicists don't like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea. Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.
Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.
The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable nonreligious explanation for what is often called the "fine-tuning problem"—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.
"For me the reality of many universes is a logical possibility," Linde says. "You might say, 'Maybe this is some mysterious coincidence. Maybe God created the universe for our benefit.' Well, I don't know about God, but the universe itself might reproduce itself eternally in all its possible manifestations."
Taking on Copernicus Linde is lying in bed, recovering from a bad fall off a bicycle that broke his left wrist. His left hand, bound in a cast, rests on a pillow. Linde is sturdily built, with thick gray hair that flops down over his forehead; you wouldn't necessarily pick him out as a man who spends much of his time lost in thought about the distant universe. Right now he is ignoring his injury, reciting a long list of some of the cosmic coincidences that make life possible.
"And if we double the mass of the electron, life as we know it will disappear. If we change the strength of the interaction between protons and electrons, life will disappear. Why are there three space dimensions and one time dimension? If we had four space dimensions and one time dimension, then planetary systems would be unstable and our version of life would be impossible. If we had two space dimensions and one time dimension, we would not exist," he says.
The idea that the universe was made just for us—known as the anthropic principle—debuted in 1973 when Brandon Carter, then a physicist at Cambridge University, spoke at a conference in Poland honoring Copernicus, the 16th-century astronomer who said that the sun, not Earth, was the hub of the universe. Carter proposed that a purely random assortment of laws would have left the universe dead and dark, and that life limits the values that physical constants can have. By placing life in the cosmic spotlight—at a meeting dedicated to Copernicus, no less—Carter was flying in the face of a scientific worldview that began nearly 500 years ago when the Polish astronomer dislodged Earth and humanity from center stage in the grand scheme of things.
Carter proposed two interpretations of the anthropic principle. The "weak" anthropic principle simply says that we are living in a special time and place in the universe where life is possible. Life couldn't have survived in the very early universe before stars formed, so the universe had to have reached a certain age and stage of evolution before life could arise.
The "strong" anthropic principle makes a much bolder statement. It asserts that the laws of physics themselves are biased toward life. To quote Freeman Dyson, a renowned physicist at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, the strong anthropic principle implies that "the universe knew we were coming."
A Wild Profusion The anthropic principle languished on the fringes of science for years. Physicists regarded it as an interesting idea, but the real action in the field lay elsewhere. And in the late 1970s, Linde, then a professor at the prestigious Lebedev Physical Institute in Moscow, was in the thick of that action. At the time, he wasn't interested in the anthropic principle at all; he was trying to understand the physics of the Big Bang. Linde and other researchers knew that something was missing from the conventional theory of the Big Bang, because it couldn't explain a key puzzling fact about the universe: its remarkable uniformity.
Strikingly, the temperature of space is everywhere the same, just 2.7 degrees Celsius above absolute zero. How could different regions of the universe, separated by such enormous distances, all have the same temperature?
In the standard version of the Big Bang, they couldn't. The universe as a whole has been cooling ever since it emerged from the fireball of the Big Bang. But there's a problem: For all of it to reach the same temperature, different regions of the universe would have to exchange heat, just as ice cubes and hot tea have to meet to reach the uniform temperature of iced tea. But as Einstein proved, nothing—including heat—can travel faster than the speed of light. In the conventional theory of the Big Bang, there simply hasn't been enough time since the universe was born for every part of the cosmos to have connected with every other part and cooled to the same temperature.
MIT physicist Alan Guth found a viable, but flawed, solution to the puzzle in 1981. Linde shored up that work shortly thereafter, making improvements to overcome those flaws. In a nutshell, Guth and Linde proposed that the universe underwent a colossal growth spasm in the first instants of its existence, a phenomenon called inflation. Today widely accepted as the standard version of the Big Bang theory, inflation holds that regions of the universe that are currently separated by many billions of light-years were once close enough to each other that they could exchange heat and reach the same temperature before they were wildly super-sized. Problem solved.
By the mid-1980s Linde and Tufts University physicist Alex Vilenkin had come up with a dramatic new twist that remains nearly as controversial now as it was then. They argued that inflation was not a one-off event but an ongoing process throughout the universe, where even now different regions of the cosmos are budding off, undergoing inflation, and evolving into essentially separate universes. The same process will occur in each of those new universes in turn, a process Linde calls eternal chaotic inflation.
Linde has spent much of the past 20 years refining that idea, showing that each new universe is likely to have laws of physics that are completely different from our own. The latest iteration of his theory provides a natural explanation for the anthropic principle. If there are vast numbers of other universes, all with different properties, by pure odds at least one of them ought to have the right combination of conditions to bring forth stars, planets, and living things.
"In some other universe, people there will see different laws of physics," Linde says. "They will not see our universe. They will see only theirs. They will look around and say, 'Here is our universe, and we must construct a theory that uniquely predicts that our universe must be the way we see it, because otherwise it is not a complete physics.' Well, this would be a wrong track because they are in that universe by chance."
Most physicists demurred. There wasn't any good reason to believe in the reality of other universes—at least not until near the beginning of the new millennium, when astronomers made one of the most remarkable discoveries in the history of science.
The Accelerating Universe In 1998 two teams of researchers observing distant supernovas—exploding stars—found that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. The discovery was baffling. Just about everyone had expected that the cosmic expansion, which started with the Big Bang, must be gradually slowing down, braked by the collective gravitational pull of all the galaxies and other matter out there. But built into the very fabric of space, it seems, is some unknown form of energy—physicists call it simply dark energy—that is pushing everything apart. Many cosmologists were skeptical at first, but follow-up observations with the Hubble Space Telescope, along with independent studies of radiation left over from the time of the Big Bang, have powerfully confirmed the reality of dark energy.
The idea that empty space might contain energy was not the part that surprised physicists. Ever since the birth of quantum mechanics in the 1920s, they have known that innumerable "virtual" particles pop into and out of existence all around us, a sort of quantum white noise, always there but forever beneath our notice. What astonished them was the peculiar specificity of the amount: exactly enough to accelerate expansion, yet not so much that the universe would rapidly rip itself apart. The observable amount of dark energy appears to be another one of those strange anthropic properties, calibrated to allow planets, stars, and us.
"If [dark energy] had been any bigger, there would have been enough repulsion from it to overwhelm the gravity that drew the galaxies together, drew the stars together, and drew Earth together," Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind says. "It's one of the greatest mysteries in physics. All we know is that if it were much bigger we wouldn't be here to ask about it."
Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, a physicist at the University of Texas, agrees. "This is the one fine-tuning that seems to be extreme, far beyond what you could imagine just having to accept as a mere accident," he says.
The Multiverse on a String Dark energy makes it impossible to ignore the multiverse theory.Another branch of physics—string theory—lends support as well. Although experimental evidence for string theory is still lacking, many physicists believe it to be their best candidate for a theory of everything, a comprehensive description of the universe, from quarks to quasars. According to string theory, the ultimate constituents of physical reality are not particles but minuscule vibrating strings whose different oscillations give rise to all the particles and forces in the universe. Although string theory is enormously complex, requiring a total of 11 dimensions to work correctly, it is a mathematically convincing way to knit together all the known laws of physics.
In 2000, however, new theoretical work threatened to unravel string theory. Joe Polchinski at the University of California at Santa Barbara and Raphael Bousso at the University of California at Berkeley calculated that the basic equations of string theory have an astronomical number of different possible solutions, perhaps as many as 10^1,000*. Each solution represents a unique way to describe the universe. This meant that almost any experimental result would be consistent with string theory; the theory could never be proved right or wrong.
Some critics say this realization dooms string theory as a scientific enterprise. Others insist it is yet another clue that the multiverse is real. Susskind, a leading proponent of that interpretation, thinks the various versions of string theory may describe different universes that are all real. He believes the anthropic principle, the multiverse, and string theory are converging to produce a coherent, if exceedingly strange, new view in which our universe is just one of a multitude—one that happened to be born with the right kind of physics for our kind of life.
"Some people would call this the great disaster of string theory, that instead of giving rise to a single theory, it gave rise to something that is so diverse we can never make any sense out of it," Susskind says. "Others would say, 'Ah, this is exactly what we need for eternal inflation, for the multiverse, for anthropic thinking, and so forth.'"
* Correction: Due to a formatting error, this number was originally rendered as "101,000."
Prove It Linde's recent research has helped solidify the connection between string theory and the multiverse. Some physicists have long embraced the notion that the extra dimensions of string theory play a key role in shaping the properties of new universes spawned during eternal chaotic inflation. When a new universe sprouts from its parent, the concept goes, only three of the dimensions of space predicted by string theory will inflate into large, full-blown, inhabitable spaces. The other dimensions of space will remain essentially invisible—but nonetheless will influence the form the universe takes. Linde and his colleagues figured out how the invisible dimensions stayed compact and went on to propose billions of permutations, each giving rise to a unique universe.
Linde's ideas may make the notion of a multiverse more plausible, but they do not prove that other universes are really out there. The staggering challenge is to think of a way to confirm the existence of other universes when every conceivable experiment or observation must be confined to our own. Does it make sense to talk about other universes if they can never be detected?
I put that question to Cambridge University astrophysicist Martin Rees, the United Kingdom's Astronomer Royal. We meet at his residence at Trinity College, in rooms on the west side of a meticulously groomed courtyard, directly across from an office once occupied by Isaac Newton.
Rees, an early supporter of Linde's ideas, agrees that it may never be possible to observe other universes directly, but he argues that scientists may still be able to make a convincing case for their existence. To do that, he says, physicists will need a theory of the multiverse that makes new but testable predictions about properties of our own universe. If experiments confirmed such a theory's predictions about the universe we can see, Rees believes, they would also make a strong case for the reality of those we cannot. String theory is still very much a work in progress, but it could form the basis for the sort of theory that Rees has in mind.
"If a theory did gain credibility by explaining previously unexplained features of the physical world, then we should take seriously its further predictions, even if those predictions aren't directly testable," he says. "Fifty years ago we all thought of the Big Bang as very speculative. Now the Big Bang from one millisecond onward is as well established as anything about the early history of Earth."
The credibility of string theory and the multiverse may get a boost within the next year or two, once physicists start analyzing results from the Large Hadron Collider, the new, $8 billion particle accelerator built on the Swiss-French border. If string theory is right, the collider should produce a host of new particles. There is even a small chance that it may find evidence for the mysterious extra dimensions of string theory. "If you measure something which confirms certain elaborations of string theory, then you've got indirect evidence for the multiverse," says Bernard Carr, a cosmologist at Queen Mary University of London.
Support for the multiverse might also come from some upcoming space missions. Susskind says there is a chance that the European Space Agency's Planck satellite, scheduled for launch early next year, could lend a hand. Some multiverse models predict that our universe must have a specific geometry that would bend the path of light rays in specific ways that might be detectable by Planck, which will analyze radiation left from the Big Bang. If Planck's observations match the predictions, it would suggest the existence of the multiverse.
When I ask Linde whether physicists will ever be able to prove that the multiverse is real, he has a simple answer. "Nothing else fits the data," he tells me. "We don't have any alternative explanation for the dark energy; we don't have any alternative explanation for the smallness of the mass of the electron; we don't have any alternative explanation for many properties of particles.
"What I am saying is, look at it with open eyes. These are experimental facts, and these facts fit one theory: the multiverse theory. They do not fit any other theory so far. I'm not saying these properties necessarily imply the multiverse theory is right, but you asked me if there is any experimental evidence, and the answer is yes. It was Arthur Conan Doyle who said, 'When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'"
What About God? For many physicists, the multiverse remains a desperate measure, ruled out by the impossibility of confirmation. Critics see the anthropic principle as a step backward, a return to a human-centered way of looking at the universe that Copernicus discredited five centuries ago. They complain that using the anthropic principle to explain the properties of the universe is like saying that ships were created so that barnacles could stick to them.
"If you allow yourself to hypothesize an almost unlimited portfolio of different worlds, you can explain anything," says John Polkinghorne, formerly a theoretical particle physicist at Cambridge University and, for the past 26 years, an ordained Anglican priest. If a theory allows anything to be possible, it explains nothing; a theory of anything is not the same as a theory of everything, he adds.
Supporters of the multiverse theory say that critics are on the wrong side of history. "Throughout the history of science, the universe has always gotten bigger," Carr says. "We've gone from geocentric to heliocentric to galactocentric. Then in the 1920s there was this huge shift when we realized that our galaxy wasn't the universe. I just see this as one more step in the progression. Every time this expansion has occurred, the more conservative scientists have said, 'This isn't science.' This is just the same process repeating itself."
If the multiverse is the final stage of the Copernican revolution, with our universe but a speck in an infinite megacosmos, where does humanity fit in? If the life-friendly fine-tuning of our universe is just a chance occurrence, something that inevitably arises in an endless array of universes, is there any need for a fine-tuner—for a god?
"I don't think that the multiverse idea destroys the possibility of an intelligent, benevolent creator," Weinberg says. "What it does is remove one of the arguments for it, just as Darwin's theory of evolution made it unnecessary to appeal to a benevolent designer to understand how life developed with such remarkable abilities to survive and breed."
On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? "If there is only one universe," Carr says, "you might have to have a fine-tuner. If you don't want God, you'd better have a multiverse."
As for Linde, he is especially interested in the mystery of consciousness and has speculated that consciousness may be a fundamental component of the universe, much like space and time. He wonders whether the physical universe, its laws, and conscious observers might form an integrated whole. A complete description of reality, he says, could require all three of those components, which he posits emerged simultaneously. "Without someone observing the universe," he says, "the universe is actually dead."
Yet for all of his boldness, Linde hesitates when I ask whether he truly believes that the multiverse idea will one day be as well established as Newton's law of gravity and the Big Bang. "I do not want to predict the future," he answers. "I once predicted my own future. I had a very firm prediction. I knew that I was going to die in the hospital at the Academy of Sciences in Moscow near where I worked. I would go there for all my physical examinations. Once, when I had an ulcer, I was lying there in bed, thinking I knew this was the place where I was going to die. Why? Because I knew I would always be living in Russia. Moscow was the only place in Russia where I could do physics. This was the only hospital for the Academy of Sciences, and so on. It was quite completely predictable.
"Then I ended up in the United States. On one of my returns to Moscow, I looked at this hospital at the Academy of Sciences, and it was in ruins. There was a tree growing from the roof. And I looked at it and I thought, What can you predict? What can you know about the future?"
Cosmic Coincidences
If these cosmic traits were just slightly altered, life as we know it would be impossible. A few examples:
• Stars like the sun produce energy by fusing two hydrogen atoms into a single helium atom. During that reaction, 0.007 percent of the mass of the hydrogen atoms is converted into energy, via Einstein's famous e = mc2 equation. But if that percentage were, say, 0.006 or 0.008, the universe would be far more hostile to life. The lower number would result in a universe filled only with hydrogen; the higher number would leave a universe with no hydrogen (and therefore no water) and no stars like the sun.
• The early universe was delicately poised between runaway expansion and terminal collapse. Had the universe contained much more matter, additional gravity would have made it implode. If it contained less, the universe would have expanded too quickly for galaxies to form.
• Had matter in the universe been more evenly distributed, it would not have clumped together to form galaxies. Had matter been clumpier, it would have condensed into black holes.
• Atomic nuclei are bound together by the so-called strong force. If that force were slightly more powerful, all the protons in the early universe would have paired off and there would be no hydrogen, which fuels long-lived stars. Water would not exist, nor would any known form of life. T. F.


text:
Update: Sorry guys. I hadn't seen it before, but apparently this dell keylogger junk is a rather delicious hoax. To keep from confusing the RSS readers, I'm leaving a post stub up. If I wasn't travel-beaten I would have paid attention to the fact that the supposed keylogger wasn't on a flexible flat cable. I pulled the image since it was originally stolen.
It's probably totally BS, but supposedly this guy found what seems to be a keylogger inside his new dell 600m laptop. He submitted a FOIA request to the DHS, only to have his request denied. It's a bit tin-hat, but the idea that a three letter agency might be adding extra hardware to your laptop is very disturbing indeed. I guess it's time to start auditing any new hardware purchased for bonus parts. [via]


text:
LOS ANGELES – The Los Angeles Dodgers are off to their best start since 1999. One of the reasons is a new and improved Chad Billingsley.
Another is Juan Rivera, whose bat manager Don Mattingly will be able to enjoy in the middle of his lineup for a full season this time around to complement Andre Ethier and Matt Kemp.
Billingsley pitched six sharp innings, Ethier hit an RBI single for his second go-ahead hit in two days and Rivera had a pair of RBI singles among his three hits, leading the Dodgers to a 4-1 victory over the Pittsburgh Pirates on Wednesday night.
Billingsley (2-0) allowed five hits — including a home run by Clint Barmes — struck out four and walked none to help the Dodgers improve to 5-1.
The 27-year-old right-hander, in the second year of a four-year contract that will pay him more than $41 million, pitched 8 1-3 innings of three-hit ball and struck out 11 last Friday in a 6-0 win at San Diego.
"He's going out there and pitching," Ethier said. "He really trusts his stuff. He's pounding the strike zone and making guys miss. And when he gets in a jam, he figures out a way to get out of it — either with a big double-play ball or by forcing contact with a guy and coming out on top. It's nice to play defense behind him because there's not too many balls hit to you."
Billingsley is 6-1 lifetime against Pittsburgh with a 3.83 ERA. Pirates catcher Rod Barajas, who was a teammate of Billingsley's the previous two seasons, has a feeling that this could be a breakout year for his ex-batterymate.
"I think he just needs to be aggressive. If he works in the strike zone and makes those hitters swing the bat, I think he'll be fine," Barajas said. "A lot of times last year he'd walk some guys, then get behind in the count and have to come in with the fastball. But it he stays aggressive, throws strikes and pounds that zone, he's going to be good enough to dominate."
Matt Guerrier and Kenley Jansen each pitched a scoreless inning and Javy Guerra worked a perfect ninth for his fourth straight save.
Rivera singled home Mark Ellis in the third and Dee Gordon in the seventh.
"Having Rivera there going back-and-forth in that four and five spot gives us the best look every day and adds a little more thump in big RBI situations," Ethier said.
Erik Bedard (0-2) gave up two runs and eight hits in five-plus innings and struck out three. The Canadian-born left-hander, looking for his first NL victory, was coming off a 1-0 loss to Philadelphia ace Roy Halladay last Thursday at Pittsburgh.
"I thought he did well. He mixed up his pitches and gave up some tough hits, but he was able to work his way out of it most of the time," Barajas said. "That's what you like about him. He competes and he never gives in. He believes in himself and that makes it easier for me to call the game, because I know I can put down whatever signs and he's comfortable throwing it. The only thing we didn't really have working for us tonight was the changeup. He never seemed to get a feel for it."
The Dodgers opened the sixth with singles by Kemp and Rivera, whose slow bouncer to the right of the mound deflected off Bedard's glove as he tried to backhand it. Ethier — who hit a go-ahead homer in the eighth inning of Tuesday's home opener — lined a 3-1 pitch the other way to left field, scoring Kemp and giving the Dodgers a 2-1 lead.
"I kind of gave away an at-bat my second time up when I was in an RBI situation and didn't make the most of it," Ethier said. "So I just tried to make it simple my next time up. Fortunately, I worked myself into a good hitter's count, used my hands and got a good pitch over the middle of the plate."
James Loney pinch hit for Billingsley later in the sixth with the bases loaded against Tony Watson and went 0 for 2, making him hitless in his first 16 at-bats — the longest season-opening drought of his seven-year career. In 2008, he hit safely in his first 15 games.
NOTES: Nancy Bea Hefley, who succeeded Helen Dell as Dodger Stadium's organist in 1988, will get her first opportunity to throw out a ceremonial first pitch before Saturday night's game against San Diego. ... Clayton Kershaw was presented with his Cy Young Award on the field before the game by former Dodger Fernando Valenzuela, who won it in 1981 as a rookie. ... The security people on the field were wearing batting helmets during batting practice — a new directive instituted by Major League Baseball for all ballparks.


text:
Purchasing a house has become increasingly harder for first-time homebuyers in B.C., even more so for those living in the Okanagan/Kamloops region.
According to a recent 2019 BC Notaries Association real estate report, more first-time homebuyers are requiring financial help from their parents to buy a property.
In 2019, the report said 86 per cent of notories reported that first-time homebuyers required financial help from their parents to secure a down payment for a home. Out of those homebuyers, 92 per cent needed help with a down payment of less than 25 per cent.
READ MORE: Central Okanagan residents need to make $52,000 annually to live comfortably: report
Between 2015 and 2019, the report there were three per cent more first-time homebuyers requiring financial support to secure a down payment.
Across the province, 90 per cent of first-time homebuyers needed help from their parents to secure a home, up from 70 per cent in 2015.
READ MORE: Central Okanagan residents need to make $52,000 annually to live comfortably: report
Province wide, there was a 40 per cent reduction in homebuyer activity reported by notaries.
The report stated increased mortgage restrictions, lack of supply, and new taxes as some of the biggest hurdles for first-time homebuyers trying to enter the B.C. real estate market.
Between 2012 and 2018, a single-detached home in the increased by 70 per cent to $779,000, in the Central Okanagan.
Like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.


text:
Representing Christ to a Postmodern World
Related Media
A Peanuts cartoon depicted a conversation between Linus and Charlie Brown. Charlie Brown was confused and disillusioned by his failing beliefs when Linus comforted him with these timely words: "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere." I also recently heard a religious leader on television state that if the bones of Christ were to be discovered in Palestine today, this would not alter his Christian faith; his faith was not bound by objective truths.
Surveys are becoming emphatically more clear that the majority of our culture believes that truth is relative.1 It has been clear for some time now that our world is going through a major cultural shift. The illustrations stated above are all too common in today's postmodern2 society. We have moved from a world of absolutes, objectivity, and dogmatism to one of relativism, subjectivism, and tolerance. The greatest commandment in this postmodern society is this, thou shalt tolerate one another. Springing forth from this relativistic epistemology,3 tolerance has become preeminent. As one writer has put it, "Tolerance has become so important that no exception is tolerated."4 A person may have his or her religion, and may believe it, but he or she has no right to try to persuade another of his or her belief. Why? Because what you are saying is that your belief is superior to their belief. This is the supreme act of intolerance, the primary postmodern taboo.
It is not my purpose here to outline and detail the rise of postmodernism as many others have sufficiently done.5 Neither it is my purpose to critique postmodernism as a movement. What I shall attempt to do is to give the Christian some practical direction on how to represent Christ in a postmodern world.
I shall deal with three primary issues with which the Christian needs to wrestle. The first of these is the issue of tolerance. This is the question: How are we to react to a culture whose battle cry is tolerance? Are we to join in? Does the Bible have anything to say about whether we are to tolerate each other and in what ways? Secondly, we need to briefly and practically tackle the postmodern idea that all truth is relative. Many churches are joining hands with our culture and embracing this view of relativity. Others compensate by rejecting any notion of relative truth whatsoever, claiming that all truth is objective. What does the Bible have to say about truth and relativity? Are there truths that are relative as the postmodern claims? Or is all truth absolute and objective? And third, among the truths that are objective (assuming that there is objective truth), what are the essentials and non-essentials? The early Church during the Diocletian persecutions (AD 302-305) was forced to begin to define the canon of Scripture.6 The Romans were arresting and killing Christians who possessed Scriptures. Nobody wanted to give up his life for a book that was not inspired; it was not worth dying for. In our postmodern age, it is more important than ever to define what truths are worth dying for. We need to be able to distinguish between what is essential for the Christian faith and what is non-essential.
Christian Tolerance?
Often when false claims are promoted, the reaction is to defend the truth by going to the opposite extreme. The early church, when battling with Pelagius' false view of anthropology, in order to defend the doctrine of depravity (as they should have done), went to the opposite extreme and promoted the doctrines of purgatory and limbo to account for the children who, although depraved, could not exercise faith.7 Many Calvinists in the 17th century countered the Arminians by emphasizing God's sovereignty to such an extent that they seemed to support the idea that God was the author of sin and evil. Often times it is human nature to counter false beliefs by promoting equally false beliefs of the opposite extreme. If you don't believe me, just think to the last argument you had with your spouse where he or she told you that you were overreacting to a situation. You respond by stating that you were NOT overreacting and that you NEVER overreact. It may have been true that you were not overreacting in that instance, but it is probably not true that you NEVER overreact. In order to prove what you believe to be a false statement to be false ("you are overreacting"), you offer an equally false statement in its place ("you NEVER overreact"). It is the classic pendulum effect. We all do this in many ways. But tragically, today this is often the result when Christians counter a postmodern relativistic epistemology. When we hear that the culture is stating that there are no absolute truths, it is our tendency to clinch our fists and promote objectivity at all costs. When we find that tolerance has become the most important virtue of a godless society, it is our tendency to throw out tolerance all together.8 But what does the Bible have to say about tolerance? Are we to tolerate each other?
This question must be asked more exactly before its answer can benefit our present study. Two different groups of people need to be in focus: (1) those who are part of the body of Christ (the Church) and believe in absolute truth9 and (2) those who are outside the body of Christ and have bought into the postmodern fad of relativity. There is a difference between asking "Are we to tolerate the sin of a Christian?" and "Are we to tolerate the sin of a non-Christian?" We will meet the challenge of the non-Christian first; then we will move on to the Christian.
Tolerance of those outside the Church
Practically speaking, the only truth that the postmodern believes is that there is no truth, or at least no objective access to that truth. We are all confined to our own ideas of what is right or wrong, true or false. But whatever our conclusions may be, they are merely our opinions, and our opinions are no better than those of another. Therefore, to the postmodern, all of us are imprisoned behind the unbreakable walls of this subjective reality, and therefore we must all "tolerate" each other. It is not uncommon to hear statements like this: "If you believe that the Bible is God's Word, that is fine and good, but you must also tolerate the person who believes in the Quran or any other religious literature they may choose." But here is where the problem arises: What do the postmoderns mean by "tolerate"? Do they mean that we are simply to live together without killing each other? Do they mean the same as the American Heritage Dictionary's definition of what it means to tolerate: "To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit"? Do they simply mean that if I have a neighbor who adheres to a belief system other than mine, that I am supposed to live at peace with him, not prohibiting or oppressing him? If this is the case, I agree. I am "tolerant" and should be. I concede that, at least in this case, the postmodern objective is good because I do not have the authority or power to prohibit anyone from believing whatever they choose. If this is the case, then all is well.
But in reality, this is not what typical postmoderns mean when they cry for "tolerance." They are not asking people to simply tolerate and get along with the opposing belief. The fact is that they are asking people to compromise their beliefs. They are asking me to concede that my neighbor's beliefs are just as true as mine, to forfeit my notion of objectivity, and to surrender my view of exclusivism. The result would accomplish nothing less than to render a death blow to my belief in the Scriptures. What they are implying when they push their definition of "tolerance" is that people should never stand up for their beliefs, if standing up for them means stating that their beliefs are the only true beliefs—that they are exclusive. They are not asking people to tolerate the homosexual, but to change their belief that homosexuality is wrong for everyone. But, again, this is not asking someone to be tolerant; it is asking someone to compromise his or her beliefs and convert to the postmodern faith. This is something that the Christian cannot do.
Christians should join hands with the postmodern in this cry for tolerance if tolerance means that we live at peace with those of other faiths, not prohibiting them from believing something unbiblical—that is God's job. But, of course, this is not what they are asking. By tolerance, the postmodern means that we compromise the objectivity of God's Word. By tolerance, the postmodern cries for us to stop reaching out to others with the Gospel. By tolerance, the postmodern demands that we approve of their lifestyles. By tolerance, the postmodern is essentially asking us to give up our faith. This we cannot do.
The first step in understanding and reaching out to the postmodern non-Christian is for us all to be able to understand and compellingly argue that it is not tolerance that they want, but compromise.
Tolerance of those Within the Church
As I stated earlier, it is important for us to separate what it means for us to be tolerant to those outside the Church from what it means to be tolerant to those within the Church. We have already concluded that we are to tolerate those outside the Church, as long as tolerance means that we live at peace with those of different beliefs than ours. But how is it different within the Church? Does the Bible have anything to say about tolerance among believers?
The answer is "yes." In chapter four of his epistle to the Ephesians, Paul begins to tell his readers how they are to live the Christian life. Speaking on the importance of unity, Paul states, "Therefore, I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace" (Eph. 4:1-3, emphasis added). Here Paul tells us that one of the primary ways the Church preserves unity is by showing tolerance. The participle "avnecomenoi" here has the meaning "to endure, bear with, to put up with."10 The King James often translates it, "to suffer with." This word is used by Christ when He cries over Israel, "how long shall I put up with you" (Matt 17:17, emphasis added). It almost always carries a negative connotation. In 2 Maccabees 9:12, it is used of an unbearable stench; the smell was said to be intolerable. In his letter to the Ephesians, Paul is telling the Church that it will sometimes be necessary to tolerate the "stench" of one another. This presupposes something negative about the ones we are to tolerate. Someone may have a repulsive personality—Paul tells us to endure them! Another has a bad temper—bear with them! Someone differs with you in some non-essential doctrine—tolerate them! Let's face it, when we all get to heaven we will all find out that we were wrong about a few things. Some more than others, but we will all have some surprises.
So, the question is not whether we, as Christians, are to show tolerance to fellow believers, but to what extent are we to be tolerant? Is there a difference in tolerating a Christian who smokes a pipe and tolerating a Christian who is involved in a homosexual relationship? Should we distinguish between tolerating one who is a non-cessationist and one who denies the Trinity? These are the issues that will inevitably arise when discussing the issue of tolerance in a postmodern society. The first thing that we, as Christians, need to establish is that some type of tolerance is mandated in Scripture. We will shortly decide what this tolerance looks like and how it plays out.
Christian Relativism?
Before we can begin to define the ways in which Christians are to be tolerant, we must first fit another piece into the puzzle. This piece is the issue of relativism. Again, relativism is at the heart of the postmodern epistemology. It is not uncommon to hear one say, "Christ is my way to God, but I don't push my beliefs on others." Or, "Western Christianity has no right to push its beliefs on others who are perfectly comfortable with their religion and have been for hundreds of years." Relativism is the idea that truth is contained only in the eye of the beholder. Like the Peanuts cartoon I referred to earlier, "It doesn't matter what you believe as long as you are sincere." To the relative postmodern, all truth is contingent upon the situation, culture, or language of the person. With relativism, a moral truth can be true and binding for one person, while for another it is not. Having an abortion may be wrong for one person and right for another. Likewise, the true relativistic postmodern may claim that two conflicting statements can both be true at the same time. For example, one may claim that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and another could claim that He is not the Son of God. To the postmodern, both of these statements could be true at the same time. The law of non-contradiction is not binding to the relativist. A new law has taken its place, the law of relativism.
This proposal from the postmodern that all truth is relative has again caused the Church to be on the defensive. The tendency for the Christian is to fight absolute relativism with the opposite extreme, absolute objectivism. Absolute objectivism believes that all truths are objective in the same way absolute relativism believes that all truths are relative. Objective truths are just the opposite of relative truths. They do not depend upon the situation, culture, language, or any other variable. Objective truths are truths that exist in and of themselves. They are true even if nobody believes them to be true. An example of an objective truth may be the fact that I have daughters named Katelynn and Kylee or that the sun shines. These are truths that exist independently. They do not need anything to affirm them in order for them to be true. As Christians we emphatically affirm the existence of objective truths. It is one of the bedrocks of Christianity. It is because of the objective truth of the atonement that you and I can have access to God. It is because of the objective truth that God created us that we exist. There is no room for relativity in these matters. It is our job to defend many of these objective truths at all costs. But this is usually where we, and our extremist nature, often take things too far. While it is our job to defend certain truths at all costs, it is not our job to defend all truth at all costs. In order to counter the one who believes that all truth is relative, we may state that all truth is objective. But is that true? Is all truth objective?
Paul, writing to the Romans, deals with a situation that is relevant to our question. Young believers were often convinced that it was wrong to eat foods that were considered unclean. Paul emphatically states that all foods were clean: "I know and am convinced in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself" (Rom. 14:14a). Paul was saying that it was OK to eat ham! This is the objective truth, right? Not quite. The objective reality was that all foods were clean, but there was a relative situation which determined whether or not it was right or wrong to eat these foods: "But to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean" (14:14b). Therefore, if someone thought that it was a sin to eat ham, but did it anyway, this was a sin to him. Not because God would be angry that the person ate what was unclean, but because he consciously believed it was wrong and therefore rebelled against his conscience and God. Not only this, but Paul goes on to state that whatever is done without full conviction that it is right is sin (v. 23). This means that if I believe that wearing brown slippers is a sin, but I do it anyway, it becomes sin for me. Not that wearing brown slippers is wrong, but because I am in conscious rebellion against God. Likewise, if I believe that listening to a certain type of music on the radio is wrong but I do it anyway, to me this is wrong. But while it is wrong for me, it may not be wrong for the person in the passenger seat next to me who has no conviction whatsoever that it is wrong. In this situation, the postmodern is correct—the truth, right or wrong, is relative. It is relative upon whether or not the person was acting against their conscience. For one person it was wrong to listen to the music, for the other it was not. For one person it may have been wrong to eat ham, for another it was not. There are many other situations like that just described which occur in our lives everyday. The point that I am trying to make is that truth is sometimes relative. We as Christians need to realize this if we are to speak intelligently to a postmodern world.
But how does one tell which truths are relative and which are objective? It is not always easy. There are some things that are not clearly spoken of as right or wrong in Scripture. Therefore, the person must prayerfully revert to his or her own conscience for guidance. But the reality is that the Scriptures speak truthfully and objectively in the principles that they cover. All Christians are subject to the truth of God's Word—no exceptions.
Emphasizing the Essentials
Now we return to the question of tolerance within the Church. To what extent are we to tolerate the objective sinful behavior of a believer? What beliefs are the sine qua non (without which, not) of the true Christian? In other words, bare minimum, what does a person have to believe to be saved? This is one of the most important exercises that we can endeavor to accomplish in representing Christ to a postmodern world. We must recognize the difference between the essentials of the Christian faith and the non-essentials. Concerning salvation, we need to be able to state exactly what the Bible says is essential for salvation — what exactly is the content of what a person needs to believe to be saved. Does one simply have to "believe in the Lord Jesus" (Acts 16:31)? If so what does that entail? What does one have to know about Christ? Does he have to know that He is God? Does he have to believe that Christ vicariously took his place on the cross? Does he have to believe and turn from his sin? Or does he just have to believe, as the thief on the cross did, that Christ was the messianic King going to His Kingdom? What about the Holy Spirit? Must one believe in Him before he or she is born again? Do you have to believe in the Trinity, the virgin birth, the inspiration of Scripture, the Second Coming of Christ, or the existence of Hell? The list could go on and on. The question is this: Are these all doctrines that the unbeliever must accept before he or she is considered a believer? There is not time here to fully exhaust this vital study. I apologize, but it is not my intention to define exactly the essentials for salvation.11 There are many, even within evangelicalism, who disagree as to what exactly is essential and what is not. My intention is to put forth the relevancy of this subject. It is extremely important that we categorize just exactly what the Bible says about salvation.
Likewise, it is also important for us to determine what is essential for sanctification. Is it essential that people hold to the correct eschatology (understanding of the future things) for them to grow in Christ-likeness? If so, how important is it? Is it essential that a believer be baptized? How essential is it if a believer continually neglects to share the Gospel? This list could also go on and on. And again, it is not my purpose to bring you to a conclusion on these matters. It is my purpose, however, to help you to understand the importance of struggling with these issues and to have a grid through which to filter them. It is to this we now turn.
Take a look at the attached quadrant chart. It is a key to understanding what we are talking about. I have found it to be very useful in many situations. It is very simple, yet extremely helpful in creating a mental grid through which one can filter many of these issues. It has two broad categories, each divided into two sections. Following are the category definitions. Observe the patterns on the chart as you read.
1. True Relativity: Everything that exists on the left side of the quadrant is truly relative. It is either completely independent of right or wrong, or the right or wrong is determined by the situation.
a. Situational Relativity: The right and the wrong of those in this category are dependent upon the culture, time, situation, or some other variable. Women not wearing a head covering (1 Cor. 11:5) is a good example. While the women who did not wear a head covering were expressing an underlying sinful principle, the wearing of the head covering itself was not right or wrong. Its sinfulness was dependent upon the cultural expression. The same sin may be expressed in our culture but in a different way.
b. Autonomous Relativity: This category contains those that are truly relative. There is no right or wrong. This category is filled primarily with opinions and autonomous customs that are not related to right or wrong. One's opinion on the best song is an example of something that is autonomously relative. There is no one correct answer that exists by itself — it is always relative.
2. True Objectivity: All that is on the right side of the quadrant is the objective side. Everything on this side has a definite right or wrong. There is always an objective truth that is true no matter whether one believes it. It is not dependent upon time, culture, or any situation. It exists as true or false in and of itself. All biblical principles and doctrines belong on this side.
a. Essential Objectivity: In our current chart, this category contains only those that are essential for salvation.12 This should contain only those truths which you believe a person must accept to be considered a true Christian.
b. Non-Essential Objectivity: This category contains both doctrinal and non-doctrinal issues which are not necessary for one's salvation. A good example might be whether one believes in the cessation of the gift of tongues. Tongues either ceased or they did not cease. The truth is objective. But at the same time, it is non-essential because it is not necessary to believe one way or the other as a prerequisite to salvation.
Read the categories carefully. After you have finished, construct your own chart. Keep it with you for a few weeks. When issues arise, decide the category in which you think they belong. Be critical of yourself. This chart is extremely valuable in understanding that these categories exist. It is not an ironclad never-failchart that you can use in all situations. In fact, your chart will probably look different from mine in some areas. The value of this chart is to express the necessity of thinking about these areas more deeply. We live in a postmodern culture in which people live their lives on the left side of the quadrant (relativism). We have a Church that wants to counter by living on the right side (objectivism). By becoming familiar with the principles of this chart, we will be able to express truth in a more relevant fashion.
Another key value of this chart is to better place emphasis where emphasis is due. Many Christians overly stress their views (many of which are relative) on certain issues to an unbelieving postmodern, giving them the wrong impression. We express our opinions about having a glass of wine, rock-and-roll, or some other area just as emphatically as we would the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. We do so as if we believe that convincing someone that rock-and-roll is wrong is the same as convincing them of the Gospel. We must understand that convincing someone of any area outside of the objective essential will not save them. That is a big problem within the Church — we major in the minors. We will argue all day long with the unbeliever about the theory of evolution and never tell them about Christ. We never even give them a chance to believe what is most important. Let me make this clear: There is nothing wrong with discussing or even debating the non-essentials, but we must keep in mind that the non-essentials do not save. They can be used as primers and springboards for the Gospel, but they cannot replace it. We must get to the Gospel in every witnessing opportunity we have. Eleven of the twelve sermons in Acts contain the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. The only one that did not was Stephen's, and if it were not cut short, he surely would have presented the risen Christ to the Sanhedrin. It is imperative that we emphasize the Gospel; it is the only message that contains eternal life.
Look and see what is the matter with this paragraph. It is taught in writing class that you do not emphasize too many words. You save your emphasis for times that really matter. If you emphasize too much, then when you come to a word or a statement that you really want to stress, you have no stronger way to express your emphasis. All the emphases will look as if they carry the same importance.
This is precisely what the Church does with many issues and doctrines. We may emphasize some non-essential so much that when we come to the things that are really important, we have no more stress left—it is called overstatement. Strunk and White, in their excellent book on writing, The Elements of Style, warn concerning overstatement:
"When you overstate, readers will be instantly on guard and everything that has preceded your overstatement as well as everything that follows it will be suspect in their minds because they have lost confidence in your judgment or your poise. Overstatement is one of the common faults. A single overstatement, wherever or however it occurs, diminishes the whole, and a single carefree superlative has the power to destroy, for readers, the object of your enthusiasm."13
If too much emphasis is placed on the non-essentials, this does not make the non-essentials more important, but it makes the essentials less important. We end up destroying the "object of our enthusiasm"— the Gospel of Christ. Once this happens, the unbelieving postmodern may then accept the essentials only because they have taken on a lower status of relativity. We have to continually ask ourselves what things we have placed in italics in our lives and if they deserve to be there. Most people's lives are filled with opinions, pet peeves, disputes, and hang-ups. When the unbelieving postmodern looks at you, what would he say that you have in italics in your life? We should have very few things that we greatly emphasize in order to save our stress for the things that really matter. We can give no greater honor to Christ than to emphasize the things that He emphasized.
Can we tolerate the postmodern? What are the issues which we are to tolerate? These are questions that have not yet been fully answered. Tolerance is a difficult issue, and interrogation of some of the more specific issues must be postponed for now. It is my prayer that interest in learning and teaching the essential fundamentals of the Faith has been stirred within. Progress has been made. We understand that tolerance is a mandate within the Church. We also understand that the Bible teaches that there are many situations in which truth is relative. These steps are vital to our witness to a postmodern culture. If we are to evangelize in the world today, we need to be relevant. We do not panic when someone says that truth is relative, we explain that they are right, but only some truth is relative. When they cry for tolerance, we cry with them, and explain to them the difference between tolerance and compromise.
Having done this, it is important to remember that we, as believers, will still be rejected. As Christ said, "Remember the word that I said to you, 'A slave is not greater than his master.' If they persecuted Me, they will also persecute you;…" (John 15:20). What we, as Christians, need to make sure of is that we are being persecuted for the right thing. We do not want to give the unbeliever any more reason for rejecting Christ then he or she already has.
How do we represent Christ to the postmodern? We approach them like we do any other unbeliever of any time, or culture, or language — we hand them the crucified and risen Savior. We bring them the essential.
1 Subjective, pluralistic, and pragmatic also accurately describe our culture, but for this study we will primarily use the term relative and its cognates assuming a tight relationship between all the terms.
2 This term will be further defined as we proceed in our study. Most briefly, "postmodern" describes a current trend within our culture that began in the late 20th century that is relativistic in its thinking concerning truth and knowledge.
3 Epistemology describes the way we understand the nature and grounds of knowledge.
4 Charles Colson, How Now Shall We Live (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale, 1999) p. 23.
5 See Millard Erickson, Truth or Consequences (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2001); Douglas Groothuis, Truth Decay (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 2000); J. Grenz, A Primer on Postmodernism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996); J. Richard Middleton & Brian J. Walsh, Truth is Stronger Than it Used To Be (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 1995). Also see Walter Truitt Anderson, Reality Isn't What it Used to Be (San Francisco, CA: Harper Collins, 1990).
6 John Hannah, Our Legacy (Colorado Springs, CO: NavPress, 2001) p. 41.
7 See Jacques Le Goff, The Birth of Purgatory (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1984) who states that Augustine was the "true father of purgatory" (p. 61).
8 Please understand that I am not demoting the Christian's need to stand for truth. Christianity is not a religion that can exist without the doctrine of absolute truth. I commend many within the Church today who have been equipping Christians to stand up for absolute truth. I am simply attempting to place a buffer between the extremes so that we can stay faithful to the truth of Scripture in a relevant way.
9 I am not implying that all Christians believe in absolute truth. In fact, I believe that there are a lot who don't. In my ministry to single adults, both young and old, I am having my eyes opened to the truth of Stanley Toussaint, a former professor of mine at Dallas Seminary, who taught me that "the sins of the culture become the sins of the Church." The postmodern philosophy of the culture is beginning to flood our pews.
11 Although it seems clear that the most vital of all the essentials is the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. Paul seems to have made that abundantly clear in 1 Corinthians 15, "For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures" (1 Cor 15:3-4, emphasis added).
12 This quadrant could also be used for the things that are essential for sanctification.
13 Strunk and White, Elements of Style, (Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon), 7.
Related Topics: Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, The Theology Program


text:
Back Pain Clinic
Showing 1 from 1 Items
Wellbeing Osteopaths
We are a team of four experienced osteopaths with over 50 years of clinical experience and a diversity of special interests. Our clinics have been established in Bath and Corsham for 10 years.
We treat people of all ages from newborns to the elderly and help alleviate a broad spectrum of problems from back and neck pain, stiff joints, fibromyalgia and headaches to work and sports related injuries and postural problems – including those in pregnancy and childhood.


text:
The North Carolina General Assembly's Public Utilities and Energy Committee on Wednesday voted down H.B.298, legislation that would have repealed the state's Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Portfolio Standard (REPS).
H.B.298, introduced by State Rep. Mike Hager in March, passed in a state House committee earlier this month before being moved to the Public Utilities and Energy Committee for a vote.
The REPS requires North Carolina's investor-owned utilities to procure 12.5% of their generation from renewable energy by 2021, while electric cooperatives and municipal utilities are required to procure 10% by 2018.
"This vote to defeat the REPS repeal bill was not just a good outcome, it was the right outcome," Ivan Urlaub, executive director of the NC Sustainable Energy Association, said in a statement." North Carolina businesses, ratepayers, workers and state and local economies all had a stake in this outcome, and they all won a victory today."


text:
For current vacancies with the USDA-ARS, please see the listings below.
Scientists and Engineers -- Includes vacancy announcements for all managerial, research, and support scientist positions requiring a scientific background in the life, physical, and engineering sciences. U.S. citizenship is required.
Research Associates -- Includes temporary (usually up to 2 years in duration) postdoctoral research associate positions for Ph.D. graduates in the life, physical, and engineering sciences. Preference is given to candidates whose degree has been received within the last 4 years. Citizenship restrictions apply.
All Other Jobs -- Includes vacancy announcements for all administrative, clerical support, trades and scientific technician positions. U.S. citizenship is required.
Student and Summer Employment -- Provides information on who to contact in ARS if you are interested in student and summer employment opportunities. Citizenship restrictions apply. For all current Federal Job openings, please visit the USAJobs website.
Career Opportunities
The links below are to current ARS job openings listed at the official job site of the US Federal Government, USAJOBS.
ARS openings in Salinas, CA
ARS openings in California
ARS openings nationwide


text:
Etihad Airways will launch daily flights between the airline's home-base of Abu Dhabi and Amsterdam, the capital of the Netherlands. The new EY77 and EY78 services will begin on Wednesday 15th May 2013 and carry the KL code of KLM.
The daily flights will complement KLM's current service between Amsterdam and Abu Dhabi, which will increase to daily from the summer and carry Etihad Airways' EY code, ensuring that the two airlines can offer a combined double-daily service.
James Hogan, President and Chief Executive of Etihad Airways, and Peter Hartman, President and Chief Executive of KLM, also disclosed details of the expansion of the codeshare agreement between the two airlines.
James Hogan said: "We are delighted that Amsterdam will become a part Etihad Airways' global network from 15th May. The Dutch capital joins a group of 17 leading European cities that Etihad Airways flies to including Brussels, Dublin, Frankfurt, Geneva, London and Paris.
"The double-daily service between Amsterdam and Abu Dhabi will benefit passengers looking to travel from the Netherlands to Abu Dhabi and beyond to destinations like Sri Lanka, Pakistan and Australia.
"This is indicative of Abu Dhabi's growing importance as a global hub. In addition to Amsterdam, Etihad Airways will also launch flights to Sao Paulo, Washington DC, and Ho Chi Minh City in 2013."
Strong demand for the Etihad Airways service is anticipated from the Dutch community in the UAE which consists of more than 5,000 Dutch nationals and 300 Dutch companies. Bilateral trade between the Netherlands and UAE is currently valued at US$3.6 billion.
Etihad Airways will operate a two-class Airbus A330-200 aircraft on the new Amsterdam service, configured with 22 seats in Pearl Business class and 240 in Coral Economy class, offering each week a total of 3,668 seats between the two capital cities.
The codeshare expansion will see Etihad Airways placing its EY code on KLM flights to Stockholm, Aberdeen, Barcelona, Bergen, Birmingham, Copenhagen, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Gothenburg, Helsinki, Leeds/Bradford, Madrid, Nice and Toronto. This adds to the current codeshare flights to Billund, Cardiff, Newcastle, Oslo, and Stavanger.
In return, KLM will place its KL code on Etihad Airways flights to Baghdad, Basra, Calicut, Cochin, Dhaka, Erbil, Hyderabad, Kathmandu, Chennai, Male, Peshawar, Seychelles and Trivandrum. This adds to the current codeshare flights to Colombo, Islamabad, Lahore, Melbourne, and Sydney.
Peter Hartman said: "It is great news for KLM, Schiphol Airport and the Netherlands that Etihad Airways will launch its own daily service between Amsterdam and Abu Dhabi and that we have expanded the codeshare agreement and forged even closer ties between the two cities.
"KLM's Abu Dhabi service has been very successful and it is welcoming news for air travellers that it will increase to daily and that we will also place our KL code on Etihad Airways' new daily flights that will start on 15th May."
Etihad Airways and strategic partner Air France-KLM unveiled plans to work together on codeshare routes, commercial development and cost synergies in October 2012. The agreement expanded the UAE flag carrier's network to 337 destinations.
These new destinations are part of the airline's 10-year network growth plan that will see Etihad Airways fly to more than 100 destinations with a fleet of more than 150 aircraft by 2020.


text:
Auto Climate Control Is Backwards
February 22, 2012
I have a Toyota Highlander with an automatic climate control system that totally baffles me. The issue concerns the option to either bring in fresh air or recirculate the cabin air.
Consider what happens if I keep the system in "auto" mode. When I get in the car on a hot summer day, it's blisteringly hot inside the cabin. When I turn the car on, the air recirculation mode goes on. So, instead of bringing in the relatively cool outside air, the car recirculates the much hotter cabin air and tries to cool that down.
Later, when the cabin air finally cools to a comfortable temperature, the system goes from recirculation mode to fresh air mode. So now, instead of recirculating the cool cabin air, it tries to cool down the much hotter outside air.
When I get in the car on a cold day, the cabin air, while cold, is still much warmer than the air outside. When it's cold, the system always picks the fresh air mode. So, instead of trying to heat up the cabin air, it tries to heat up the much colder outside air. Of course, I can almost always override the programmed choice by manually hitting the cabin air recirculation mode button.
I say "almost always," because if it is very cold outside -- less than 32F -- the cabin air recirculation button is disabled. That means it takes much longer to heat up the really frigid fresh air. Apparently, the system is worried that with cabin air recirculation, I might mist up the window and not be smart enough to turn it off or turn on the defroster. I can think of no circumstance where the system's choice is any other than the opposite of what would make sense.
This entry was submitted by Michael Holtz and edited by Rob Spiegel.
Tell us your experiences with Monkey-designed products. Send stories to Rob Spiegel for Made by Monkeys.
Related posts:
About the Author(s)
You May Also Like


text:
Phoenix, Arizona (CNN) -- A legal battle over a tough Arizona immigration law appeared certain after a federal judge granted a preliminary injunction Wednesday that blocked the most controversial parts of the law a day before it was to take effect.
The injunction means that, at least for now, police are prevented from questioning people's immigration status if there is reason to believe they are in the country illegally.
U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also blocked provisions of the law making it a crime to fail to apply for or carry alien registration papers or "for an unauthorized alien to solicit, apply for, or perform work," and a provision "authorizing the warrantless arrest of a person" if there is reason to believe that person might be subject to deportation.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the state would file an expedited appeal to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, signaling a legal escalation that some expect will end up before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Other parts of the law will go into effect Thursday as passed. This includes a ban on so-called sanctuary cities, and the criminalization of hiring day laborers who are in the country illegally. The parts of the law dealing with sanctions for employers who hire illegal immigrants also withstood the first legal test.
CNN senior analyst Jeffrey Toobin said the ruling reflects the government's argument that immigration enforcement should be dealt with at the federal level.
"Arizona may have good intentions, they may be trying to make up for where the U.S. government has failed, but what the judge is saying is, this is not the way to do it.
"I think this a case very much destined for the Supreme Court," as other states pass similar laws, Toobin said.
Seven lawsuits, including one filed by the Department of Justice, are seeking to block implementation of the law, signed by Brewer in April.
Arizona state Sen. Russell Pearce, author of the law, said he foresaw a protracted legal fight from the beginning.
"I wrote it to go to the supreme court," he said before the ruling came down. "I'm begging for that fistfight at the Supreme Court. We will win in a 5-4 decision and finally settle this problem."
He added, "My message to the judge is uphold the Constitution. Uphold state's rights. This is a battle of epic proportions. This is the states versus the central government."
The Court of Appeals could take up the case in a matter of days, but the earliest the Supreme Court could look at it would be October, because the high court is in summer recess.
Brewer said that she was disappointed by the ruling.
"This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens," she said in a statement. "I am deeply grateful for the overwhelming support we have received from across our nation in our efforts to defend against the failures of the federal government."
She emphasized that Wednesday's action was a temporary injunction and that many other parts of the bill will go into effect as planned.
Another supporter of the law, Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio, said that he and his crusade against illegal immigration will not be deterred.
"I am not really disappointed about the judges decision," Arpaio said. "I know what my policies are, and we are going to continue doing what we have been doing."
The Center for Immigration Studies, which advocates immigration reduction, was disappointed but not surprised by the ruling, said Executive Director Mark Krikorian.
"If the opponents hadn't turned it into this bogeyman, it would have been a useful, if modest, tool for the police," Krikorian said.
He argues that the Arizona law wasn't intended to usurp federal authority.
"Arizona does not have its own immigration policy, even with the law. They are buttressing federal law," Krikorian said.
Arizona Sens. John McCain and Jon Kyl, both Republicans, also came out against the ruling.
"Instead of wasting taxpayer resources filing a lawsuit against Arizona and complaining that the law would be burdensome, the Obama Administration should have focused its efforts on working with Congress to provide the necessary resources to support the state in its efforts to act where the Federal government has failed to take responsibility," they said in a joint statement.
The Justice Department issued a statement saying the court "ruled correctly."
"While we understand the frustration of Arizonans with the broken immigration system, a patchwork of state and local policies would seriously disrupt federal immigration enforcement and would ultimately be counterproductive," the statement said. "States can and do play a role in cooperating with the federal government in its enforcement of the immigration laws, but they must do so within our constitutional framework."
While officials and their staff issued statements, a small group of activists in Phoenix expressed how they felt about Arizona's law in a traffic-stopping way.
Four protesters wearing hard hats and work boots climbed a crane high above the streets of downtown Phoenix and unfurled a banner that read "Stop Hate."
The banner also had a black mark through the number 1070. That was the number assigned to the immigration measure when it was introduced in Arizona's legislature as a bill.
Capt. Scott Walker with the Phoenix Fire Department called the four protesters experienced climbers and said they would be arrested when they came down.
Reaction to Wednesday's ruling on the Arizona law was not limited to the United States.
Applause erupted at a protest outside the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City when a speaker announced the judge's decision.
"I think it is a big victory, and it is the start of many more," said Sergio de Alba, president of the National Confederation of Workers and Farmers Organizations.
Minutes earlier, he had called on Mexicans to boycott products from the United States in protest.
Protesters attached signs to a gate in front of the Embassy, with one slogan saying, "Boycott Against Arizona-Nazizona, home of hunting migrants and the Ku Klux Klan."
Opponents say the law will lead to racial profiling, which is illegal. The government's lawsuit, however, didn't use that rationale in it's lawsuit. It argued that Arizona was usurping a federal authority.
Supporters point out that the law prohibits racial profiling and that people cannot be stopped and asked for proof of legal residence based solely on their looks.
CNN's Catherine Shoichet, Phil Gast, Adam Blank, Holly Yan and Arthur Brice contributed to this report.


text:
Business API
Your tool, your experience, our API
Upgrade to a paid plan to build custom integrations according to your business needs
Add your own tools with our Business API
Connect your company's own applications to your Revolut Business account for a personalised customer experience
Learn moreStress-free APIs for payments
Set up API integrations to automate your payments. Pay suppliers on time without having to keep track of each one and never miss a payment owed
Get startedStreamline your business processes with our Business API
Our Business API lets you seamlessly integrate your Revolut Business account into your workflow. Build custom integrations with your software to meet your needs
- Counterparties
Add and manage Revolut counterparties
- Accounts
Instantly access data from your accounts
- Payments
Make, schedule and cancel payments
- Transactions
View all transactions and generate custom reports
- Web-hooks
Receive instant updates on account transactions
- Authentication
Safely request access to users data with OAuth


text:
Access control market is open to the idea of open standards
The access control industry continues to play second fiddle to the video surveillance industry in terms of its adoption of open standards, according to IHS Inc.
The drive to integrate and modernize access control systems is creating a stir around open standards for the access control industry, which is set to top $2.3 billion globally by the end of 2013, up from $2.1 billion in 2011, according to IMS Research, now part of IHS Inc.
The access control industry continues to play second fiddle to the video surveillance industry in terms of its adoption of open standards. Despite attempts by associations such as the Physical Security Interoperability Alliance (PSIA) and the International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) to bring open standards to access control, implementation remains stagnant and questions from many suppliers have been left unanswered.
"IEC 60839-11-1, which could be voted on later this year, could have a big impact on the manufacturing and interoperability of thousands of access control systems," said Blake Kozak, senior analyst for senior analyst for access control, fire and security at IHS. "The proposed standard specifies not only the minimum functionality, performance requirements and test methods for electronic access control systems but also the components used for physical access in and around buildings."
Today, each access control panel has its own engine and firmware that works with software architected for a particular solution. Additionally, there are databases that utilize specific schemas, making it difficult for end users to use panels from different manufacturers in the same installation. By rolling out open standards, many of these problems can be overcome. However, the vision is by no means a reality and the access control industry faces an uphill battle.
"Some vendors are actively touting open standards between the panels and software, while other vendors believe such standards may limit the market and hurt those players that only manufacture panels," Kozak continued. "Furthermore, some argue that open standards will only be fully utilized for smaller and midsized applications, while large applications will need a customized solution because in some cases, open standards could reduce the amount of functionality that current, proprietary solutions allow."
Others have agreed in that open standards for access control have a cleaner fit within hosted and managed solutions, which typically are more oriented toward information-technology purposes.
In most cases, the primary benefit of open standards is not to reduce "vendor lock," a phenomenon in which customers cannot switch to a new supplier because they are dependent on a specific vendor for its products and services. Rather, the main advantage that standards bring is to allow ease of integration with different systems, such as access control and video surveillance, or access control and HVAC.
A perception in the industry has been that some end users don't upgrade or change brands because it would be too costly and the integration wouldn't work well. However, this is not always the case. In most instances, end users simply don't change their system—i.e., software and panels—to another brand, not because of vendor lock but because the system works the way it was intended. Viewed this way, vendor lock does not play a significant role in the argument for open standards.
Overall, open standards for access control could bring a dramatic change for vendors and alter the face of the access control industry as it is known today. However, a more realistic alternative is that open standards will be offered by vendors as part of a portfolio, but uptake will remain with proprietary or semi-proprietary solutions in the medium term. While it is expected that new, proposed standards will be presented in 2013, the access control industry will still lag far behind the video surveillance industry due to the complexity of access control systems.
– Posted by CFE Media, Plant Engineering, Control Engineering
See other Control Engineering postings on research.
Do you have experience and expertise with the topics mentioned in this content? You should consider contributing to our CFE Media editorial team and getting the recognition you and your company deserve. Click here to start this process.


text:
Senate District N and O legislators hold a constituent teleconference from 6 to 7 p.m. today at the Legislative Information Office, 270 W. Pioneer Ave. This is an open discussion with Kenai Peninsula legislators Sen. Peter Micciche, Sen. Cathy Geisel, Rep. Paul Seaton, Rep. Kurt Olson, and Speaker of the House Mike Chenault. For more information, call the LIO at 235-7878.
The Kachemak Bay Birders hold a birding trip to the mouth of the Anchor River on Saturday. Meet at the parking lot adjacent to the boat launch area there at 12:30 p.m. or meet at the Alaska Islands and Ocean Visitor Center at noon to carpool. For more information, contact the trip leader, Michael Craig, at 235-0631. Everyone is welcome and there is no charge. All trips are cosponsored by the Kachemak Bay Birders and Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. Bring binoculars and scope if you have one. Dress warmly and expect icy conditions.
Ski Across the Galaxy, a gala dinner auction for the Homer High School Nordic Skiers, is at 6 p.m. Saturday at the barn at Harmon and Pauli Hall's home on Diamond Ridge. Carri Thurman of Two Sisters Bakery prepares a gourmet five-course meal. Live music is by Daniel Perry and Lydia Arndt. Tickets are $80 each and on sale at the Homer Bookstore or by calling 235-2846.
The Homer Fish and Game Advisory Committee meets at 6:30 p.m. Feb. 12 in the NERRS building. The main agenda item is preparing comments on the state Board of Fish proposals. For more information, call Dave Lyon at 235-9408.
The Backcountry Film Festival is 7 p.m. Feb. 21 at the Homer Theatre. The festival is sponsored locally by The Kachemak Nordic Ski Club and The Alaska Quiet Rights Coalition. All proceeds will go to support these two organizations. The festival features seven short films focusing on backcountry skiing and snowboarding. Tickets are $10 at the door. Door prizes will be awarded at intermission and tickets include a chance to win a Black Diamond backcountry ski package.
First Lady Sandy Parnell has opened the nomination period for the First Lady's Volunteer of the Year awards. The First Lady invites all Alaskans to help recognize their fellow citizens who have shown extraordinary volunteer service and made a positive impact on their community by nominating them for the awards. An executive
committee made up of Alaskans from around the state will select award recipients from the nominees. The winners will be recognized at a ceremony in May. Nominations are due by March 1. For more information, log on to the governor's website at gov.alaska.gov/parnell/governors-office/volunteer-awards.html. Nomination forms are also available at the Capitol in Juneau, or at the governor's regional offices in Anchorage and Fairbanks. The program began with First Lady Bella Hammond and has continued throughout the years.
A raffle for a 2000 Triumph Dual Tiger Sport 900 cc motorcycle is being held to help with medical bills for volunteer firefighter John Cox. Tickets are $50 each or three for $125. The raffle ends Feb. 28. The motorcycle is on display at Carquest. Tickets are available by calling Charmaine Collins at 435-7126 or Greg Collins at 299-2625. Donations also are welcome.
The Anchor Point Snow Rondi is Feb. 21-24 in Anchor Point. This year's theme is "Up to Snow Good."
The Friends of Kachemak Bay State Park seeks a logo for the organization. The winning design receives a free two-day state park cabin rental and round-trip water taxi ride with Mako's Water Taxi. The design should include the image of a devil's club plant and should be a black-and-white, 2-inch-by-3-inch image. The deadline is 8 p.m. March 1. Send images to Brad Kloeckl at firstname.lastname@example.com.
The Homer Chamber of Commerce and Visitor Center seeks volunteers to help with everything from helping visitors to helping plan and execute community
programs like Cleanup Day and the Fourth of July Parade. Call Nyla at 235-7740 to figure out where the chamber can best use your talents and local knowledge.
The Kachemak Bay Celtic Club is calling for artists, musicians, poets, dancers, vendors and community members interested in helping celebrate the Celtic culture. Upcoming events include St. Patrick's Day, Tartan Day, Highland Games and more. For more information, call Shelly at 299-1557 or Nancy at (907) 748-4844.
The Mindfulness Meeting is a group for cultivating wisdom, gratitude and serenity through skills and practice that meets weekly on Fridays. The meeting is from noon to 1:30 p.m. Friday in the conference room of the Beluga Professional Building, 3691 Ben Walters Lane. Everyone is welcome; there is no charge. For more information, call Rachel or Sharon at 235-7712. This group is sponsored by South Peninsula Haven House.


text:
- Home
- Government
- Departments L - Q
- Parks & Recreation
- How do I...
- Learn More About...
Learn More About...
About Us
Learn more about the Department and it's governance.
Adopt a Park
Make Garland a more inviting city by volunteering to assist with maintaining park areas by picking up litter and providing other services to beautify Garland's parks.
Becoming an Instructor
Find information about Garland Parks and Recreation program policies. It will help you complete the instructor proposal form.
PRCAD Employment/Jobs
List of Parks & Recreation jobs.
Facility Reservations
We are delighted you are considering Garland Parks and Recreation as the site for your next meeting, event or practice.
Master Plans & Park Projects
PRCAD Master Plans and Park Projects
Private Pool Parties
Celebrate birthday parties, team victories, or family reunions at a Garland swimming pool. Lifeguards are provided.
Recreation Center I.D.
All drop in participants are required to purchase and scan a Recreation Center ID Card when entering a City of Garland recreation center.
Senior Lunch Program
The City of Garland provides a hot lunch Monday through Friday for senior citizens age 60 and older.
Senior Transportation
Transportation is provided for seniors ages 60 and over from their homes to either one of the senior centers each weekday.
Special Events
Learn more about Special Events.
Tree Donation
Enhance Garland parks and public areas by making a donation to plant trees.
Special Event Permit
Learn what it takes to get a permit for your event.


text:
Now showing items 1-2 of 2
The Public Library Catalogue as a Social Space: A Case Study of Social Discovery Systems in Two Canadian Public Libraries
(Canadian Society for Information Science, 2011-01-01)
This paper uses transaction log data to examine how library users interact with two social discovery systems used in two Canadian public library systems. Results indicate that user-generated content is not used extensively ...
Social Discovery Tools: Cataloguing Meets User Convenience.
(Canadian Association for Information Science, 2011)
The paper discusses (a) the ethical dimensions of creating catalogue records to reflect user convenience, (b) the relationship between culture and user convenience, and (c) how social discovery tools can facilitate the ...


text:
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
{Tutorial} Giant Quilled Snowflakes from the Sugar Plum Fairy Party
11 comments:
- Heather {WhipperBerry} said...
Those are LOVELY!! Can't wait to try them.
Heather from WhipperBerry - December 28, 2010 at 9:40 AM
- Audrey said...
Beautiful! We're going to do ths today...my son and I
AudreyGardenLady - December 28, 2010 at 10:05 AM
- Pink Cake Plate said...
Kim I love Beacons 3 n 1 Craft Glue for my paper crafts!! It is fantastic! Dries clear and quick!! I think I might make these for my New Years Eve party!!
- December 28, 2010 at 10:05 AM
- Wendys Hat said...
These are great! Thanks! I love snowflakes but usually do the traditional ones. Will definitely give these a try!
- December 28, 2010 at 10:07 AM
- Joy said...
I love this! My BF Daughter's birthday is in January and it rarely snows in Houston, these will be perfect! We want to do Winter Wonderland!
- December 28, 2010 at 10:21 AM
- Isabella Costallat said...
That´s really lovely!
Warm hugs from Brazil! - December 28, 2010 at 11:00 AM
- Ann said...
Wonderful snowflakes, tutorial, and pics! Quilling is amazing - it uses such simple supplies to get stunning effects like this.
- December 28, 2010 at 11:08 AM
- Owen's Mom said...
Thank you thank you, I was just telling my mom about these yesterday and hoping that we would be blessed enough to get a tutorial!!!
- December 28, 2010 at 12:50 PM
- Leslie said...
Thank you SO much for sharing! I was really hoping you would share a tutorial on how to make these. They are just GORGEOUS!
- December 28, 2010 at 1:11 PM
- BirthdayPartyBabble.com said...
Thank you, you've made it so easy. I am going to spray paint them pink, purple and red for bouquet for a valentine's day themed birthday party!
- December 28, 2010 at 8:38 PM
- Unknown said...
these are so cute! I saw them over at "all things paper" and I fell in love with them :-) You are very creative, I never thought of making them in giant sizE! I've made smaller quilled snowflakes, but these are just dazzling!! :-)
Thanks for sharing!!
The Creative Muslimah @ www.thecreativemuslimah.blogspot.com - January 6, 2011 at 8:12 AM